WheelofGear wrote:Wonder if he is going to take any risk at Ruta del Sol? Would be stupid to go full retard on the MTF right now. If he was smart, he would lose intentionally to prove he is human and clean & make people forget about his doping case.

Poursuivant wrote:Let's say he gets a ban at tribunal next month, and he immediately appeals to CAS, can he still ride?

Froome will be banned from the day the Anti-Doping Tribunal judge signs his/her Judgment, it will take effect immediately. And then he seeks to have his ban reduced / overturned at CAS if he chooses to appeal. But he doesn't get to ride during appeal process

Poursuivant wrote:Let's say he gets a ban at tribunal next month, and he immediately appeals to CAS, can he still ride?

Froome will be banned from the day the Anti-Doping Tribunal judge signs his/her Judgment, it will take effect immediately. And then he seeks to have his ban reduced / overturned at CAS if he chooses to appeal. But he doesn't get to ride during appeal process

Mean time from appointment of judge to final decision is a little over three months, regardless of hearing (I didn’t include the Matzka case, as an outlier). My impression is that when the case drags out, the judge (on his/her discretion or at UCI’s request) is inclined not to hold a hearing, perhaps because s/he feels there is enough information from all the back-and-forth at that point. In any case, the result is that hearing or no hearing, cases on average take about as long to conclude once the judge has been appointed. Only one case other than Matzka took longer than four and a half months from the appointment of the judge.

It seems that the judge for Froome’s case was appointed in the beginning of February. So history indicates there’s a reasonable possibility that a decision will be reached before the Giro, particularly if it’s expedited for that purpose. It would be very unusual if a decision were not reached before the Tour.

Edit: Wrong again. I guess the proceedings are just being opened next week, which means the judge hasn't been appointed yet. So have to add 2-3 weeks to the time table I outlined.

Last edited by Merckx index on 14 Feb 2018 02:34, edited 1 time in total.

brownbobby wrote:Does Froome himself have to get involved in/attend any part of the hearing...or is it all down to the Lawyers now leaving him free to race whenever he pleases?

Lloyd Mondory chose to skip the proceedings of the ADT despite having been given "every opportunity to explain the facts in his file and to present his argument". He didn't even try to defend himself. The result was: he got banned for 4 years, and fined 70 percent of his salary and cycling income for 2015

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:It would be in Froome's best interest to participate himself in the process. He doesn't necessarily have to appear in person, they can do hearings via videoconference

As far as I can tell, the hearing usually takes only one day, maybe several days at most. So most of the time, Froome is free to carry on as usual. If there is a hearing, he can certainly request a particular date that's most convenient to him. Even if, to take a worst case scenario, the hearing were to be held in the middle of the Giro (though it would almost certainly be postponed till after the Giro was over), he could at least request it take place on a rest day.

avanti wrote:I'm not a Froome fan however it seems to me that the percentage of salbutamol in his urine is not affected by his hydration status.

You mean the concentration is not affected by dehydration? What data are you basing this on?

It will be funny if Froome gets Ms. Bachmann as his judge. Women's cyclocross versus men's road cycling, who wins?Looking at the rotation of the ADT judges, she hasn't been up in a while.She is one of the more-likely choices based on circumstances as well

Ehh, this ADT is a rubberstamp kangaroo court, it's FISA without federals. It was "extracted" from the UCI because having McQuaid "adjudicate" cases was too ridiculous a look even for cycling. Created by none other than Brian Cookson (remember this guy?) and staffed with a bunch of PhD students (hello Ms. Bachmann). No one takes it serious, which is you can appeal all of its decisions to CAS and CAS will never consider any of its findings.

I don't think it actually does any "findings". It's a glorified decision tree.

hazaran wrote:Ehh, this ADT is a rubberstamp kangaroo court, it's FISA without federals. It was "extracted" from the UCI because having McQuaid "adjudicate" cases was too ridiculous a look even for cycling. Created by none other than Brian Cookson (remember this guy?) and staffed with a bunch of PhD students (hello Ms. Bachmann). No one takes it serious, which is you can appeal all of its decisions to CAS and CAS will never consider any of its findings.

I don't think it actually does any "findings". It's a glorified decision tree.

Ehh, this WADA is a rubberstamp get-out-of-jail free card, it's Wall Street without financiers. It was "extracted" from the law because having civilian courts dispense real justice was too threatening a look even for deep pocket sponsors. Created by none other than the IOC (remember this organization?) and armed with a bunch of ridiculously lax doping standards (hello, salbutamol). No one takes it seriously, which is why you can you can appeal all of its decisions to the passport, and the passport will never consider any of its negative tests.

I don't think it actually does any "tests". It's a glorified early warning system.